I went to bad last night after reading the Replacing Dramatismthread, and one post in particlar, by Mytholder resonated for me,indeed it spurred a paradigm shift, not suprisingly onethat better facillitated the concept behind my gameTMW:COTEC.

The relevant bit was:

Quote

My current position is that the RGFA threefold model is the best of the three, and that "Narrativism" is a subset of Dramatism. It's story-oriented with empowered players. There's a similar, unnamed state within Simulationism, where players create sections of the world (y'know, PC#1 inherits a castle, so the player maps the castle, creates some background etc.). I don't know if a similar player-empowerment structure exists for Gamism - it might, but the stricter balance required means this is iffy (the only example I can come up with is players in a board game coming up with new rules on the fly, by consensus.)

This was key to me, as much of my game revolves around redistributing the tools of design and empowerment of the players in terms of Role. Upon further reflection the idea of empowerment became a formative concept for my paradigm shift. The major divide between reconciling the terms Dramatist and Narratavist seemed to be predicated upon Empowerment. Specifically, Both Dramatist and Narrativist were focused on Story, however, in Dramatism as described only one player, traditionally the GM, is empowered to Guide the story, where is in Narrativism, all players are empowered to Guide the story in some way.

So this led me to my paradigm shift, in which I reformulated the traditional GNS(GDS/GEN) thinking to focus on this element of empowerment. Below I explainmy new thinking, in a rather rough form.

(A Caveat, this is not intented to piss Ron off or make him want to tear his hair out if anything, this is my newish thinking leading me to meet mydesign goals for TMW:COTEC, much like GNS enabled Ron to meet his design goals for Sorcerer. Much of this is build upon Ron's work on GDS, whichwas also built upon much of what came before it, being RGFA GDS, orso I opine.)

So without further ado.

X-Styles - The Proof Is Out There

In my scheme, much as Rons, all of the phenomenon of RPG's isis fundamentally about Exploration/Experience, or X as Icall it. (Computer Science has creeped in here alot as I havebeen studying it to learn programming lately.)

So, RPGs exist as formal languages (much like computer programminglanguages) with which the participants use to Explore/Experiencethree fundamental goals -- Story (S), Game (G), and Role (R).

Story(S) being the traditional experience of telling a satisfyingstory. (In RPG's we (can) tell a story, traditionally thatof our character's adventure. We entered the dungeon andfought monsters, overcoming them to gain loot and become powerful.)

Game (G) being the traditional experience of engaging in a structuredcompetition or challenge.( In RPG's we (can) play a game, traditionallyone where we are able to pit the abilities of our character againstthe challenges posed. We fought 3 orcs, avoided 2 traps, to get all that gold.)

Role (R) being the traditional experience of interacting with a different reality. (In RPGs we (can) interact with a different reality - the world - by taking on the role of a character, traditionally we take on the roleof a Warrior/Mage/Thief/Priest in a fantastic world of magic and mediavealrealities.)

These are the traditional goals/functions of "playing" role playing games.

RPGs differs in the tools/functions they present to facillitate each of the three goals S/G/R, and whom they empower to use these Tools/Functions.

Traditionally, most of the tools/functions have been reserved to the privilegeduser known as the GM(DM). He is empowered to setup the program to tell a particularstory, or to control the parameters of a game, or to create the trappings of Roles.

That is, the GM defines the scenario to the players, he controls and sets the opposition and challenges the players face, and traditionally he is given some power to create the trappings of the reality explored by Role, in D&D these would be things such as magic items, classes, races, and other such constructedelements of the reality presented in the game.

Thus, in traditional role playing (or at least D&D), the GM is responsible for shaping the Story which the other players experience/explore. This is the classic Dramatist model. Now, newer games empower all of the users to shape the story, which is the newer Narrativist model.

Also in Traditional RPGs (or at least D&D), it is the GM's Game, and he is the final abitrator of what occurs. Only the GM gets to choose the opposition and set up the scenarios the players compete against. In other games, all the players are somewhat empowered to create challenges and other game elements for the players, consider Rune in which the other players control and define the opposition for each player.

Finally, in Traditional RPGs (or at least D&D), it is the GM's World,and he gets to create everything. The GM creates the world, it's nationsand peoples, he can create monsters, or magic weapons, or potions or such. Now, newer gamessay, Aria, all the players are empowered to take a hand in the creation of theworld and its elements. Meta-Design is employed in constructing the parametersof the Role.

These empowerments map to stances fairly well.

STORY STANCES:=====================================================Actor - you roll with the story being presented by the empowered player.

Author/Director/storyteller - these stances represent story based stances of the empowered player, traditionally the GM.

GAME STANCES: ================================================================ Player- you are the guy playing the game/engaging the challenge presented by the empowered player.

Game Master - this stances represent game based stances of theempowered player, you adjucate the rules and set the parameters of thechallenges faced by the Player Role. Traditionally the GM

ROLE STANCES: ===============================================================

Character- you interactwith the situation,setting,world presented by the empowered player. in the guise of your Character.

Creator/Designer - this stance represents the stance of the empowered playerhe gets to design and create elements of the world to be experienced/explored by the Character Role. Traditionally the GM has limited creator and Designer powers, though meta-systems offer the playersmore creator/designer power, Champions Power and Vehicle creation system, Heavy Gears Vehicle Design systems, etc.

Ok, so there is the basic layout of my X-Styles Theory, I hope wecan have some more discussion on this. I believe it is sound becauseit addresses the fundamental hangup presented by many people ofthe Dramatist/Narratavist divide.

(Immersionists demand strict adherence to the Character Stance, with noCreator/Designer power, beyond possibly design of their character.Further they limit their Actor Stance to IC/Character Knowledge, andtheir Player Stance to Character goals - "not what I do to win, butwhat would my character do against this challenge.)

Indeed playing with pre-generated characters is the strictestpossible instance of the character stance, as you are not empoweredto even create your character.

Anyway, I think this paradigm marks an interesting way to re-evaluate GNSand re-associate some of the ideas presented in GDS/GNS/GEN.

Also, by addressing empowerment, it appears to allow for the accomodation of slippier elements of IC/OOC, immersionist, etc. The least empowered stancesto the most empowered stances within a Style. The confusing thing is that you operate with a stance within each Style at all times within the game,though not always consciously.

I am looking forward to more discussion on this topic.

Rob Muadib.

Logged

Rob Muadib -- Kwisatz Haderach Of Wild Muse Gameskwisatzhaderach@wildmusegames.com -- "But How Can This Be? For He Is the Kwisatz Haderach!" --Alyia - Dune (The Movie - 1980)

Interesting. I'm not sure how functional it is in, say, design application, yet, but it does seem to address things in a coherent fashion. One potential problem is that the "goals" (SGR) are not at all mutually exclusive, which may lead to certain problems. OTOH, perhaps that's a feature.

Also, this addresses the goals of play (GNS does not, really), but only focuses on some of the multitudinous possibilities. Forex, it does not mention the social aspect, or escapism.

Interesting. I'm not sure how functional it is in, say, design application, yet, but it does seem to address things in a coherent fashion. One potential problem is that the "goals" (SGR) are not at all mutually exclusive, which may lead to certain problems. OTOH, perhaps that's a feature.

Also, this addresses the goals of play (GNS does not, really), but only focuses on some of the multitudinous possibilities. Forex, it does not mention the social aspect, or escapism.

Hmmm...

Mike

Mike

Well, one obvious conclusion for game design is that by choosing how you empower the players, (divvy up their roles) you either facillitate or discourage stances within a particular goal/function. It becomes an analysis of how the mechanics and guidelines of play support the stances within each function.

As for "goals" not being mutually exclusive, you are right, perhaps goals is poor choice, maybe Function is a better word. Since ideally all RPG's focus on the concurrent, I would posit, exploration/experience of the three Functions (Story, Game, Role.)

To restate, Role Playing Games are forms of entertainment whose entertainment value derives from the concurrent exploration/experience of telling a Story, playing a Game, and engaging in a Role.

RPGs then differ widely in the means they provide to engage these three types of experience/exploration and the means by which they empower the players to partake in these experiences/explorations.

As to fitting the aspects you mention. First, the Social factor. It occurs to me that the Social element is inherent it the most basic premise of our theory. That a Role Playing Game is an entertainment/game that can be engaged in by one or more people. This is similar to say chess, etc. The social factor enriches and makes the experience more dynamic by involving multiple participants in an interactive dynamic environment.

Thus, the idea that someone only plays an RPG to be with his friends, since he doesn't really like RPGing that much, could also be applied to say chess. He doesn't really like chess so much, but he likes palying a game against his friend. etc. To summarize, it is accounted for in first principles.

Now, the idea of escapism would seem to fall into a particular combination of stances among the three functions. With the emphasis being largely on Role, and the requirement/desire that the Player be empowered to effect the Story/Game/Role balance that meets the needs of his particular escapist desire.

anyway, thanks for your comments and input

Logged

Rob Muadib -- Kwisatz Haderach Of Wild Muse Gameskwisatzhaderach@wildmusegames.com -- "But How Can This Be? For He Is the Kwisatz Haderach!" --Alyia - Dune (The Movie - 1980)